|
Hey everyone. As you may have noticed, English is not my native language. If any part of this text is unclear or gibberish, please let me know. This may be a good solution if we want a long campaing in HotS. And brace yourselves, wall of text incoming...
Context: skip if you already know it
+ Show Spoiler +Okey dokey. May seem awkward. But here are my thoughts.
Blizzard´s announcement of making just around 20 missions for HotS single player saddened us a bit As many of us summarized so finely, "we want moar". On Blizzard´s side, however, we have that they don´t want the campaign to be that long, because people aren´t finishing it.
Right, maybe they are focusing the wrong problem. Many people are just not interested in single player; plus, the campaign lacks rhythm sometimes, so people jump out of the boat. But Blizz believes that a shorter campaign would be more "finish-able", and it does make sense. A game is a little like a movie or a play; long equals boring, unless the script, the acting or the pace is awesome. So, we like it or not, the campaign is going to lose weight, that´s the path their taking (I´m also sure they read the feedback about the story, lines and characters, and may or may not be trying to fix this).
But here´s the deal: we want moar missions, more immersion into the storyline (we´ve been waiting 12 years for it!); they want people to actually play the whole damn thing they spent years working on.
I therefore respectfully propose a solution that may please both sides.
TL;DR: : We want moar, they want less, let´s figure out how can everyone be happy; here´s my ideas.
The idea: Make extra missions that are REALLY optional
Some people say that WoL´s story was something like only 10 missions long; the other 17 or so were filler. They were sometimes cool, sometimes not, but none of them would change the ending of the game. Blizzard wanted you to feel like you had the option to not play them, yet, you had to play them in order to have all the units and credits, in other words, all the gameplay content. Plus, how would you know if, by skipping them, maybe you would lose some important piece of the story going on?
WoL´s "side missions" weren´t side missions at all.
How about make side missions that REALLY are side missions? Something you would play just for fun and flavor. Missions that make clear they are free to play or not; they dont add content to the plot, dont give you power ups that you WILL need in the final missions. They´d be unnecessary - optional.
In a Blizzcon panel, a single player designer said there will be a "Destruction of Worlds" feature in HotS: Kerrigan owns an intergalactic army, she doesn’t have time to lead every single invasion. So, sometimes in the campaign Izsha will pop out and say "Hey, there´s this brood, they´re kinda bored, you want them to invade Planet Y or Planet X?" Planet Y gives you, say, extra minerals when your drones are mining, Planet X, hm, grants another thing  . You choose which planet they will invade. They do it. Profit! You won’t see it happen.
But what about if you could see this happen? You don´t need to. You´ll have the (macro/ability/whatever) reward whether you play the mission or not. But if you choose to it will be like this: everything must make clear the mission won´t affect plot or latter gameplay. You open the mission, its a simple mini-game that´s easy to understand. Not an intricate mission. Probably a Brood Mother leading things, Kerrigan is not involved. Zerglings running, things dying. End of mission. Maybe challenge-like, something fun you play many times and get better at it.
The reward? Achievements, infested jukeboxes, giant skulls or other souvenirs to fill the Leviathan with, portraits for multiplayer, pets for Wow or something for Diablo III... cool stuff, or even just achievements. So casual players don´t feel bad if they just skip them out.
Everyone wins! Because:
1) People who are not that interested in Starcraft lore won’t have to play those mini-gamish missions to know how the story ends;
2) We, lore whores, can flavor our beloved universe for a little longer;
3) There will be more than 20 missions, but only 20 will actually mean something to the storyline; in other words, the plot won’t seem as down watered as it seemed at WoL.
This is the idea peoples! If you like it spread the word!
Thx everyone
PS: I do have another idea… but the other idea is a little nuts.
EDIT: If you like it please upvote in reddit.
|
Seems like a good idea.
The "side missions" in WoL also didn't add much to the plot (other than to cast the Dominion as completely evil and Raynor as completely good), even though the player expected them too.
|
On November 01 2011 10:24 jorge_the_awesome wrote:
Seems like a good idea.
The "side missions" in WoL also didn't add much to the plot (other than to cast the Dominion as completely evil and Raynor as completely good), even though the player expected them too.
Yeah. There were too many missions for too little stuff happening. That´s why shortening the plot to 20 missions is not a that bad idea. I would welcome a more paced/intense plot if they don´t take away from us our precious zerg experience hours!
|
I pretty much agree. I had heard before that the campaign might turn out to be only 20 missions long, but I didn't know for sure. I like the idea of side-missions and perhaps that's your best shot at convincing Blizzard to give us a more reasonable amount of missions (but I'm not being too realistic here.)
If their only excuse for making this expansion so short is that people don't play through the whole thing, they should be concerned about the quality of the game. I mean, IMO, WOL's SP was decent but it was pretty shallow and boring next to BW. I ran through it on brutal in one day and then tossed it aside. Never had much to say about it.
Also keep in mind that they sold us WoL for $60, a reasonable amount given the quality of the game, its engine works well, the design is great, it comes with 30 missions, a map editor - overall a very nice platform. Assuming that the expansion sells for $50 (just a guess), it's hard for me to imagine that that's what it's worth -- I mean, it already has its core engine, less missions, less units, less everything. Overall it didn't cost nearly as much to produce - why should it be worth more than $30?
I have to say, I'm very disappointed. Provided the missions are as short as WOL's (average of 15 minutes or something?), then the game could be over in 5-6 hours. I guess they're capitalizing on the fact that people "have to" buy this game regardless because without it you're bascally SOL.
I don't know if LotV is going to be the last release of the Starcraft franchise, giving us a "case closed" kind of deal - or if they'll leave the door open for something like Starcraft 3 (I'm thinking too far ahead maybe, sorry)... but I think it would be pretty sad if they cut corners and gave us an unsatisfactory, incomplete set of missions and we ended up with an unfinished game.
|
The door will definitely be open for SC3.
Also, I thought the "Destruction of Worlds" Would involve a mission. Just not one really a part of the story line. (ie not involving Kerrigan as a unit).
I do like the idea of true 'side missions'.. ie pure achievement/'cool stuff' ie no "gameplay" boosts or Main storyline effects.
|
I love this idea... not more plot, not much more effort for Blizzard, but it'd give the people who want it more single player content. So where do I sign?
|
The big problem with WOL campaign is that the story was completly bland with good guy Raynor against evil Dominion... and from what i've seen it's going to be the same thing in HOTS ( what have they done to Kerrigan  )
Anyway I think this only an excuse from blizzard to make a shorter campaign, it's obvious that they are late on their schedule for the expansion and more mission means more delays.
|
Seems like I good idea in theory. I guess it would be something to think about as Blizzard.
|
Hmmm... This is actually a really good idea. Maybe post on the Battle.net forums? Although somehow I don't think Blizzard will take much notice
|
On November 01 2011 21:01 NoodleFish wrote:
Hmmm... This is actually a really good idea. Maybe post on the Battle.net forums? Although somehow I don't think Blizzard will take much notice
I really want to. But I can't because my 6-month license is gone and I´m using Starter Edition right now (temporary money issues). I´ll ask a friend to post it for me. Meanwhile, please keep this thread going and upvote the post in reddit (http://redd.it/lvwd4), because Blizzard actually has an eye on TL and reddit.
On the Destruction of Worlds mechanic (outrageous cool idea btw), here is a quote from Starcraft Wiki:
During the campaign, players can use the Destruction of Worlds mechanic to add a planet's resources to the Swarm's own resources. This evolves the swarm, not individual units. Old brood mothers will contact Kerrigan, wanting to rejoin the Swarm. Izsha will identify worlds to destroy, each of which gives a benefit. For instance, one might enable drones to harvest more minerals, or give overlords more control.
|
Russian Federation1612 Posts
Do you really think that there are so few missions because Blizzard don't want to make campaign long?
But i definitely agree with increasing of mission count.
|
I agree with your idea.
Maybe they could give us more non-campaing content too, like the challenges from WoL which were fun and cool.
|
To be honest I never played any RTS for the storyline when playing single player. I just played it on hardest just to beat it. The stories are usually forgettable. In fact all I remember from the story is that everyone is after raynor, there is corruption and propaganda, tychus is controlled in a shitty manner, and then raynor shoots him in the face and kerrigan is human again.
|
Wouldn't playing against the computer without any sort of story or reward be just like playing a VS AI match? That is a bunch of unnecessary padding that would in fact make most people not finish the campaign.
|
No, you got it wrong Koreish. There would be story, actually, that´s the point. More zerg lore being explored. More exposition for zerg characters. But nothing that affects the final outcome. So the story doesnt get down-watered as it did in WoL.
About the rewards: in WoL, you HAD to play all the "side" missions or you would not have the units. They werent "side" missions at all. I think real side missions, that give you no units, mutagens or whatever, just story immersion, would be really fun for those who enjoy singleplaying and the lore, but wouldnt make the game any longer for those who would wish a shorter game (and who wants a shorter game? Well, Blizzard does...).
But no gameplay rewards (units, abilities) doesnt mean no rewards at all. There could be rewards like achievements, souvenirs... anything that wouldnt be necessary at the final mission.
|
I'd be down for something like this but maybe not exactly what you are thinking. I just want more crazy SP/Co-op Challenges that won't be filler for the story. Maybe they could make some crazy hard post-ending missions?
|
On November 01 2011 09:57 nerak wrote:
Everyone wins! Because...
Everyone except Blizzard, who has to spend more money to get people to make missions. And they don't want to do that...
|
I don't know. I sort of feel that if someone doesn't want to take the time to complete the single player they won't do it in 20 missions or 40 missions. If someone doesn't want to do it you can't make them. I think that Blizzard should just make more amazing content.
|
Cool idea, in an ideal world I'd like to see this. But the commercial reality is that these extra missions:
1. Probably won't create a significant number of extra sales;
2. Will cost Blizzard more money to make;
3. Will delay the release date (which is bad for us as well as Blizzard).
Everyone wins!
Because of the above, nope.
|
United States7483 Posts
I'm okay with fewer missions if the missions are harder and longer/more intense.
WoL campaign didn't have any missions I would consider to be even remotely challenging, even on brutal.
|
IMHO Blizzard was just pulling this as an excuse to have less production costs fro the game. Noone i know quit the game, if he was enjoying it so far.
Your proposal is interesting, from my point of view i would not understand why i would avoid a mission, if it was playable.
|
The only thing I hate about 20 mission in HotS is this: back when WoL wasn't released, blizz said that they would actually separate the game into 3 expansion packs, one for each race and with 30ish mission each. Everyone said "well, I'm ok with this cuz i'm still gonna play the same amount of mission there were in SC1 , maybe even more!"
Then blizz realised that they couldn't (for some reasons) make 30 GOOD mission, so they made a bunch of very good missions, and another bunch of kinda shitty missions. Now they are already making a step back already, and they preemptively say that "WoL was to long". No, in wasn't. If Blizz actually had put more effort into the campaign development, WoL campaign would have been completely fine; but don't tell me that it was too long. If Blizz don't want to put effort into campaign development , fine. But don't hide this fact by saying that WoL was too long. BEcause we alredy know that in HotS half of the mission are going to be awesome, and the other shitty... Plus they are already showing an upgrade system too symilar and recycled from WoL one (except for Kerrigan hero system).
P.S. I actually enjoyed WoL single player, but clearly it could have been better if Blizz cared a little more...
|
I loved the campaign. It was really good, and I am somewhat sad the HotS campaign will be shorter.
But some people don't like it I guess, too bad.
|
I have played the campaign 4-5 times, so I don't know where Blizzard got their figures from. If it's true, like the OP suggest more side missions for the rest of us that doesn't affect the storyline. A lot of RPG games like Oblivion, Fallout 3 etc have tonnes of side quests that I could never finish (and most likely never will). They don't add or subtract anything from the main story, just give you extra money and experience if you decide to do them. The side quests keep you immerse and add depth to the game and add hours too if you are hardcore and want to do them all.
|
I don't like extra missions. I like having a long story just as it has been in every genre in every good game 10 years ago.
Nowadays seeminly nobody (or at least the majority) of the players just want simple, short, "action packed" missions. Where are the times when people just played a singleplayer game for 30hrs+?
|
That's a great idea. Currently you sort of do want to play the side missions regardless of how you life them because they give you research and money and units which kind of make them essential for later, harder missions unless you are a decent player.
Some side missions that don't yield such rewards would be better for skip-happy players, but they better be fun or they'd just take up hard drive space.
|
On November 07 2011 05:12 IGotPlayguuu wrote:
The only thing I hate about 20 mission in HotS is this: back when WoL wasn't released, blizz said that they would actually separate the game into 3 expansion packs, one for each race and with 30ish mission each. Everyone said "well, I'm ok with this cuz i'm still gonna play the same amount of mission there were in SC1 , maybe even more!"
Then blizz realised that they couldn't (for some reasons) make 30 GOOD mission, so they made a bunch of very good missions, and another bunch of kinda shitty missions. Now they are already making a step back already, and they preemptively say that "WoL was to long". No, in wasn't. If Blizz actually had put more effort into the campaign development, WoL campaign would have been completely fine; but don't tell me that it was too long. If Blizz don't want to put effort into campaign development , fine. But don't hide this fact by saying that WoL was too long. BEcause we alredy know that in HotS half of the mission are going to be awesome, and the other shitty... Plus they are already showing an upgrade system too symilar and recycled from WoL one (except for Kerrigan hero system).
P.S. I actually enjoyed WoL single player, but clearly it could have been better if Blizz cared a little more...
Could the campaign been better? Yes, it could.
Was it better then any other RTS campaign? Yes it was.
Even with less missions it will still be better then anything that was done so far, at least better then any expansion for an RTS done so far.
BTW, Sc1 and BW had better story (as had some other RTS games) then SC2:WoL but the total package was nowhere near.
|
I really don't get how making the side missions less important and less rewarding will make people play more of the game.
|
your Country52797 Posts
@Paladia No, it's not that. He is proposing extra missions that are optional along with the currently planned missions.
|
On November 08 2011 08:25 TehTemplar wrote:
@Paladia No, it's not that. He is proposing extra missions that are optional along with the currently planned missions.
How will that make people play more of the game? If anything, making them less rewarding would probably result in the game being played less.
|
On November 09 2011 21:26 Paladia wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2011 08:25 TehTemplar wrote:
@Paladia No, it's not that. He is proposing extra missions that are optional along with the currently planned missions. How will that make people play more of the game? If anything, making them less rewarding would probably result in the game being played less.
Nope. You got it backwards.
Blizzard wants people to end the game. Because 80 ou 90% of players doesnt. They think the solution for that is having a shorter game.
Which I sorta disagree with. Some people are lore/SP fans and some people aren't. Most people won't end the SP game anyway.
My thoughts about their strategy+ Show Spoiler +
However, certain measures can increse the number of people finishing the game... having a better paced gameplay and a better story certainly would count. But shortening the game by 30% would obviously kind of work too.
(Disclaimer: both things would make more people end the campaign, but none would make most do it)
I'm sure Blizzard got the feedback about the story issues. Maybe they will try harder this time... But I don't think the story in WoL wasnt 100% because they were lazy or something. I thing they must have tried hard enough, but haven't accomplished to reach BW's quality. So, no matter how extra effort they put into the story now, what does guarantees they´re having a better story? Nothing. Sometimes you write a awesome poem in a minute, and sometimes you break your bones for days and can't write anything decent. HotS story may be better or worse than WoL, but this isnt something that is completely under their control.
If they simply decide to shorten the number of missions, however, it WILL make some more people end the game. So it's an atitude they´re taking that would surely work as planned. What I mean is that there is logic in this madness.
But I diverse. If Blizzard has already made its mind about shortening the game, so that more (but not most) people will end it, I'm afraid we can't make them provide us a 30 mission long zerg campaign anymore. They are aiming at a demographic (multiplayer/casual gamers) thats broader than ours (SP/lore real fans). However, our demographic, while it is not that big, is an important part of keeping the Starcraft community active (not to mention feeding Blizzard's mithic reputation). So, as a long-term decision, its a nice idea to please us too.
And how do they please us, if its decided that they will shorten the game to please all the others? Well, why not give extra content that any SP fan would want to play, but that no one has to? Missions that are awesome, fun, and above all, that add depth to the story. So 20 missions doesnt seems too short.
However, the only way to have them as really side missions is if people are not forced to play them. How is it an extra mission if you can't understand whats happening if you dont play it? How is it an extra mission, if by skipping it you will not have some unit or Kerrigan ability that may be necessary in the final missions?
TL;DR: Think of Piercing the Veil. If you didn't play it, would it make any difference in All In? Nope. But did you skip it? No way! Because it was awesome. I want 5-10 missions like that. It should be very clear for casuals that don't have to play them. So the player decides himself if he is playing a 20-mission or a 25/30-mission game.
|
The only units you actually need to finish the campaign are marines, medics, and occasionally marauders. You get those from mandatory missions, so I don't see why you HAD to play Into the Jungle just to get a useless goliath.
|
On November 10 2011 03:50 Drascus wrote:
The only units you actually need to finish the campaign are marines, medics, and occasionally marauders. You get those from mandatory missions, so I don't see why you HAD to play Into the Jungle just to get a useless goliath.
1) You had to play it so you'd have acess to the fun spectre/ghost mission later.
2) If you don't play it, its like you go fight Sigma in Megaman X with only the legs and the arm parts. No chest armor nor helmet. X looks kinda weird with an uncomplete armor. Not the badass white-armored X that is shooting the octopus reploid at the game's cover... In other worlds, just having the Goliath, earning those tasty credits and unlocking the research feels good. If you go play All In without you may have no problem to win, but the fact is, no matter how useless is the helmet, X looks weird without it.
3) Hey, who is this Jamaican irisless guy... Hm, it ought to be important to play his missions. I'm probably not going to understand the story if I don't play everything...
TL;DR: The helmet is useless but X looks silly without it. You won't fight Sigma until you can tear freaking bricks with your forehead.
Blizzard thinks that when you force people to play 30 missions to have all the useless helmets that are in the game, it kills the casual.
My proposal: ok, let all the helmets and arms parts and Zero´s sacrifices be placed within 20 missions. But give us 5-10 missions that are fun and deepen the plot without being necessary to understand it. In other words: missions that are as gameplay changing as challenges, and as plot changing as novels. And make it CLEAR so that casuals and multiplayers don't even bother with them.
|
On November 09 2011 22:41 nerak wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2011 21:26 Paladia wrote:On November 08 2011 08:25 TehTemplar wrote:
@Paladia No, it's not that. He is proposing extra missions that are optional along with the currently planned missions. How will that make people play more of the game? If anything, making them less rewarding would probably result in the game being played less. Nope. You got it backwards. Blizzard wants people to end the game. Because 80 ou 90% of players doesnt. They think the solution for that is having a shorter game.
I don't think I got it backwards, I just think it is a faulty logic. In my opinion, it is much more important that people play the game than that they "end" the game. You can always call any artificial point in the game an "end" and the rest "side missions" but the real end is to complete the game. Adding less rewards towards that goal would in my opinion have the opposite effect.
|
Blizzard: 'we're making a game that is designed for Esports, for the multiplayer experience of competing against other people, but we still want you to play the god damn single player...JEEBUS'
Lets face it, the reason most people didnt complete the single player isnt because it was long, it's because there was very little flow to the game. The story was haphazard at best...and would have been a much better SP experience if it was linear. The best SP games a linear when it comes to mission based games...thats just how it has to be to keep people interested. I'm up for additional missions, optional missions...but make them fit into the story line..not just random 'cool missions'
The reason most people played the Toss missions is because it did just that....it was optional, but by god the story was fucking cool as balls....the rest of the terran campaign FAILED in comparison.....
|
Just a thought I want to share on the subject. Me and all my friends actually first played the campaign form a pirate copy and (of course) we liked the game so we bought it when it came out. That said I haven't finished the campaign on my account so blizzard see me as a non-single player guy. I can say the same thing for many people I know. On the other question - I like the campaign but it lack the...hmm..drama/thriller/scary parts of the SC1 and BW campaign that we all love.
|
Fact of the matter is that if you create a good single player campaign people will play it regardless of format. Unfortunatelly Blizzard didn't achieve this. I find the whole "should it be easier to complete" a side effect to the campaign being bad, not that people don't have the time to finish it.
|
This is the same blizz that assumed wow was too confusing since a lot of people quit within a few hours of starting the trial. Portal 2 is dreadfully short, really only has SP(and coop but we'll not assume ppl are just playing coop all the time like people just ladder in SC2) and only about 60% of people who have purchased it have beaten it. Hell, 10% of people who own portal 2 haven't even started the SP campaign.
The simple fact is, a significant portion of everyone who buys almost any game won't beat it, period.
|
You have a interesting idea but actually you don't have to play the campaine. you can always set up custom battles vs the computer in single player mode. and also most people these days play SC2 for the multiplayer aspect I belive.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
